Natural Resources Building, Room 172, Olympia DRAFT AGENDA ... › publications › bc_fp_mtgmat_1_20150512.pdf · Aaron Everett, Chair, Department of Natural Resources 9 . Bill Little,

STATE OF WASHINGTON PO Box 47012 FOREST PRACTICES BOARD Olympia, WA 98504-7012

Regular Board Meeting – May 12, 2015 Natural Resources Building, Room 172, Olympia

Please note: All times are estimates to assist in scheduling and may be changed subject to the business of the day and at the Chair’s discretion. The meeting will be recorded.

DRAFT AGENDA 9:00 a.m. - 9:05 a.m. Welcome and Introductions

Safety Briefing – Patricia Anderson, Department of Natural Resources (DNR)

9:05 a.m. - 9:15 a.m. Approval of Minutes Action: Approve February 10, 2015, meeting minutes

9:15 a.m. – 9:25 a.m. Report from Chair

9:25 a.m. – 9:40 a.m. Public Comment – This time is for public comment on general Board topics. Comments on any Board action item that will occur later in the meeting will be allowed prior to each action taken.

9:40 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. Staff Reports A. Adaptive Management – Hans Berge, DNR B. Board Manual Development - Marc Ratcliff, DNR C. Compliance Monitoring – Garren Andrews, DNR D. Rule Making Activity - Marc Engel, DNR E. Small Forest Landowner Advisory Committee and Small Forest

Landowner Office -Tami Miketa, DNR F. Upland Wildlife Working Group - Terry Jackson, Washington

Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) G. Northern Spotted Owl Conservation Advisory Group - Marc Engel,

DNR

10:00 a.m. – 10:10 a.m. Legislative Update - Chris Hanlon-Meyer, DNR

10:10 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. Board Manual Section 16 Progress Update – Marc Ratcliff and Marc Engel, DNR

10:30 a.m. – 10:45 a.m. Break

10:45 a.m. – 11:05 a.m. TFW Policy Committee’s Work Priorities - Stephen Bernath, Adrian Miller, Co-chairs and Hans Berge, DNR • Type N Progress Report • Type F Progress Report • LiDAR Model Update

11:05 a.m. – 11:20 a.m. Clean Water Act Assurances - Mark Hicks, Department of Ecology

11:20 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly Annual Report - Sherri Felix, DNR and

Gary Bell, WDFW

11:30 a.m. – 11:40 p.m. Western Gray Squirrel Report - Donelle Mahan, DNR and Gary Bell, DFW

Future FPB Meetings

Next Meeting: August 11 and November 10, 2015 Check the FPB Web site for latest information: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/ E-Mail Address: [email protected] Contact: Patricia Anderson at 360.902.1413

http://www.wa.gov/dnr

mailto:[email protected]

11:40 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Update on Department of Ecology’s Nonpoint Plan – Ben Rau and Stephen Bernath, Department of Ecology

12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m. Lunch 1:00 p.m. – 1:15 p.m. Public Comment – This time is for public comment on general Board topics.

Comments on any Board action item that will occur later in the meeting will be allowed prior to each action taken.

1:15 p.m. – 1:25 p.m. Public Comment on the Adaptive Management Program 2016-2017 Budget

1:25 p.m. – 1:45 p.m. Adaptive Management Program 2016-2017 Budget and CMER Master Project Schedule Progress – Hans Berge, DNR Action: Consider approval of the budget.

1:45 p.m. – 1:55 p.m. Public Comment of Small Forest Landowner Alternate Plan Template Proposal Initiation

1:55 p.m. – 2:15 p.m. Small Forest Landowner Alternate Plan Template Proposal Initiation – Hans Berge, DNR Action: Consider recommendations for proposal timeline.

2:15 p.m. – 2:25 p.m. Public Comment on Cultural Resource Protection Concerns, TFW Cultural Resources Roundtable Proposed Action Items

2:25 p.m. – 2:55 p.m. TFW Cultural Resources Roundtable Report & Proposed Action Items – Jeffrey Thomas and Karen Terwilleger, Co-chairs Action: Consider direction to Roundtable

2:55 p.m. – 3:10 p.m. Break 3:10 p.m. – 3:20 p.m. Public Comment on Riparian Management Zone Clarification Rule

Making 3:20 p.m. – 3:35 p.m. Rule Making on Riparian Management Zone Clarification – Sherri Felix,

DNR Action: Consider rule making by filing a CR-101 Preproposal of Inquiry.

3:35 p.m. – 3:45 p.m. Public Comment on the Adaptive Management Program Wetland Research and Monitoring Strategy: Forest Practices and Wetlands and Effects of Forested Roads Study and Tree Removal in or Near Wetlands of the Pacific Northwest Literature synthesis

3:45 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. Adaptive Management Program Wetland Research and Monitoring Strategy: Forest Practices and Wetlands and Effects of Forested Roads Study and Tree Removal in or Near Wetlands of the Pacific Northwest Literature Synthesis – Hans Berge, DNR Action: Consider TFW Policy Committee’s recommendation.

4:00 p.m. – 4:10 p.m. Public Comment on Board’s 2015 Work Plan 4:10 p.m. – 4:20 p.m. 2015 Work Planning - Marc Engel, DNR

Action: Consider changes.

Executive Session To discuss anticipated litigation, pending litigation, or any other matter suitable for Executive Session under RCW 42.30.110

Future FPB Meetings

Next Meeting: August 11 and November 10, 2015 Check the FPB Web site for latest information: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/ E-Mail Address: [email protected] Contact: Patricia Anderson at 360.902.1413

http://www.wa.gov/dnr


FOREST PRACTICES BOARD 1 Regular Board Meeting 2

February 10, 2015 3 Natural Resources Building, Room 172 4

Olympia, Washington 5 6 Members Present 7 Aaron Everett, Chair, Department of Natural Resources 8 Bill Little, Timber Products Union Representative 9 Bob Guenther, General Public Member/Small Forest Landowner 10 Brent Davies, General Public Member 11 Carmen Smith, General Public Member/Independent Logging Contractor 12 Court Stanley, General Public Member 13 David Herrera, General Public Member (participated by telephone) 14 Joe Stohr, Designee for Director, Department of Fish and Wildlife 15 Heather Ballash, Designee for Director, Department of Commerce 16 Paula Swedeen, General Public Member 17 Tom Laurie, Designee for Director, Department of Ecology 18 19 Members Absent 20 Dave Somers, Snohomish County Commissioner 21 Kirk Cook, Designee for Director, Department of Agriculture 22 23 Staff 24 Chris Hanlon-Meyer, Forest Practices Division Manager 25 Marc Engel, Forest Practices Assistant Division Manager 26 Patricia Anderson, Rules Coordinator 27 Phil Ferester, Senior Counsel 28 29 WELCOME AND CALL TO ORDER 30 Aaron Everett called the Forest Practices Board (FPB or Board) meeting to order at 9 a.m. 31 32 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 33 34 MOTION: Bill Little moved the Forest Practices Board approve the November 12, 2014 meeting 35

minutes. 36 37 SECONDED: Joe Stohr 38 39 ACTION: Motion passed unanimously. 40

41 REPORT FROM CHAIR 42 Aaron Everett expressed his appreciation of staff and the participants in the Adaptive Management 43 Program who have been working on executing the Board’s direction related to unstable slopes. 44 45 GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT 46 Kara Whitaker, Washington Forest Law Center (WFLC), said the conservation caucus strongly 47 supports the Board’s adoption of the proposed rules related to unstable slopes information. She also 48

Forest Practices Board Draft February 10-12, 2015 Meeting Minutes 1

emphasized the potential need for Board action as identified in the “next steps” of the Northern 1 Spotted Owl Implementation Team Report. 2 3 Karen Terwilleger, Washington Forest Protection Association (WFPA), said she appreciates the 4 opportunity to collaborate on the revisions of Board Manual Section 16. She also said WFPA 5 supports the adoption of rules related to unstable slopes. 6 7 Chris Mendoza, Conservation Caucus, said he was looking forward to seeing Board and Timber, Fish 8 and Wildlife (TFW) Policy Committee (Policy) members at the Cooperative Monitoring, Evaluation 9 and Research Committee (CMER) science conference. He thanked DNR for the support and direction 10 to improve compliance monitoring and said he supports the inclusion of additional funding in the 11 budget request. He also emphasized the need to get the correct buffer on a Type N stream versus a 12 Type F stream. 13 14 Peter Goldman, WFLC, presented a copy of a LiDAR map along with the associated Forest Practices 15 Application, for two state harvests that are proposed over what appears to be or was a deep-seated 16 glacial landslide in Snohomish County. He said that it was brought to DNR’s attention and DNR’s 17 response was that it was a “relic landslide” and did not require a recharge area or geotechnical 18 analysis. He said that after additional communication with DNR, the application was withdrawn. He 19 said that this situation illustrates that the newly revised board manual guidance is not enough to 20 protect public safety. He said additional rules are needed that require additional scrutiny by DNR 21 staff of glacial deep-seated landslides. 22 23 STAFF REPORTS 24 Adaptive Management 25 Chris Hanlon-Meyer, DNR, provided a status update on all of the CMER projects, how they 26 correspond to the completion of Clean Water Act milestones. 27 28 Upland Wildlife Working Group 29 Terry Jackson, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), said the fisher has been listed 30 as State endangered since 1998 and last September, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 31 proposed to list the west coast population as threatened. The final decision is due October 2015. She 32 said WDFW has been proactively working with USFWS to encourage landowners to develop a 33 candidate conservation agreement with assurances and when final, landowners will sign if they agree 34 to follow specified conservation measures for the species and will not be subject to additional 35 requirements. 36 37 Tom Laurie said he appreciated the upfront work with the landowners and asked what the limiting 38 factors are for the fisher. Jackson responded that is not about the habitat but rather disturbances such 39 as vehicle collision, poison and wildfires. 40 41 TFW Cultural Resources Roundtable 42 Karen Terwilleger, co-chair, provided an update on the Roundtable’s activities. She said they are in 43 the process of reviewing the Forest Practices Application conditioning authority for cultural resources 44 and that they are in the process of developing policy direction and issue statements to resolve the 45 issue. She also asked the Board to confirm the direction detailed in the Commissioner’s response 46 letter to the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation that the Roundtable would 47 continue working on this issue. The Board agreed. 48


No further discussion on the following staff reports: 1 • Board Manual Development 2 • Compliance Monitoring 3 • Rule Making Activity & 2014 Work Plan 4 • Small Forest Landowner Advisory Committee and Small Forest Landowner Office 5 6 RULE MAKING ON UNSTABLE SLOPE INFORMATION 7 Gretchen Robinson, DNR, requested the Board’s adoption of rules related to unstable slopes 8 information in Forest Practices Applications. She explained that draft rules were published in the 9 Washington State Register on December 3, 2014, and the public review and comment period ended 10 on January 8, 2015. 11 12 She summarized: 13 • The Board held a public hearing in Olympia on January 7 and received seven comment letters 14

containing a variety of concern and suggestions; 15 • Staff carefully considered all comments when preparing final draft rules for the Board’s 16

consideration; and 17 • The language before the Board contains several changes to the draft rules based on the public 18

comments. 19 20 She added that small forest landowner long-term applications will not be affected by this rule because 21 it is a clarification of DNR’s Forest Practices Application review process and does not change 22 resource protection objectives. 23 24 MOTION: Tom Laurie moved the Forest Practices Board adopt the rule proposal amending 25

WACs 222-10-030 and 222-20-010 related to requiring additional information, 26 including additional geologic information, to appropriately classify Forest Practices 27 Applications. He further moved the Board direct staff to file a CR-103 Rule Making 28 Order with the Office of the Code Reviser. 29

30 SECONDED: Paula Swedeen 31 32 ACTION: Motion passed unanimously. 33 34 PROGRESS ON BOARD MANUAL SECTION 16 UNSTABLE SLOPES 35 Marc Ratcliff, DNR, provided an update on the second phase of the rewrite to incorporate 36 information to identify methods to assess delivery and run-out potential of unstable slopes. 37 38 He said three meetings have occurred so far and beginning in March, meetings will occur every other 39 week. 40 41 He said the group is currently reviewing Part 6 and that not all recommendations for changes have 42 received concurrence. He indicated that where group agreement is not achieved, DNR may need to 43 make the final editing decision. 44 45 The meetings in March will begin the technical amendments for sediment delivery and run-out paths 46 and may include: 47 • Brainstorming a literature list of the current science regarding run-out 48


• estimating potential debris volume amounts from shallow landslides 1 • estimating run-out paths and distances 2 • considering down slopes resources and threats to public safety 3

4 LEGISLATIVE UPDATE 5 Chris Hanlon-Meyer, DNR, provided an update on DNR’s budget requests and information on 6 several legislative bills related to administrative procedures, rule making and forest practices. 7 8 The Board will be notified of any bills that move out of their house of origin. 9 10 NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL TECHNICAL TEAM 11 Lauren Burnes, DNR, provided an overview of the report. She said the Board in February 2010 12 directed the team to “…assess the spatial and temporal allocation of conservation efforts on 13 nonfederal lands using best available science.” She shared the analytical approach which included 14 three modeling phases: 15 • Phase I - Develop and run baseline scenarios 16 • Phase II - Analyze baselines and develop conservation scenarios 17 • Phase III - Run and analyze conservation scenarios 18 19 She said the team used a systematic, iterative process to identify non-federal lands that could make 20 meaningful contributions to owl population viability in Washington. 21 Results of the report include: 22 • The extent of harvest and fire of spotted owl habitat simulated on federal lands in the baseline 23

scenarios had a large impact on spotted owl population performance statewide 24 • Adding non-federal lands to baseline conservation areas resulted in net positive effects on spotted 25

owl populations, and above a threshold amount of added habitat, non-federal lands positively 26 contributed to spotted owl population size 27

• Conservation networks in which spotted owl habitat was restored over time performed better than 28 networks which retained only existing habitat 29

• Among spotted owl Special Emphasis Areas (SOSEA), the I-90 East, I-90 West, and White 30 Salmon performed consistently best. Habitat conservation and restoration opportunities on non-31 federal lands in these SOSEAs (relative to other SOSEAs) should most effectively build on the 32 foundation represented by the federal and non-federal baselines. 33

34 She reported the conclusions and next steps as follows: 35 • Conservation actions on non-federal lands improved spotted owl population performance 36 • Conservation actions for spotted owls on federal and non-federal baseline lands are likely to be 37

important in the future, and non-federal lands not currently managed for spotted owls can make 38 contributions to their conservation in the relatively short-term 39

• Spotted owl populations in the future are contingent on both conservation of habitat and barred 40 owl management; and 41

• The best overall population responses by spotted owls were significantly related to the amount of 42 habitat in the conservation scenario. 43

• Conservation efforts should be prioritized in subregions with the best relative population 44 performance under conservation scenarios that retain and restore habitat both inside and outside 45 SOSEAs; and 46


• Several high-priority analyses/evaluations have been identified that would be beneficial to future 1 decision making and prioritization process in a “Phase IV”; however, no further funding is 2 available at this time. 3

4 Joe Stohr stated that he was impressed with the report and asked about the suggestion on the 100-year 5 simulation and the costs. Burnes stated that this is an area where the team has struggled with over 6 time on how best to create that time period and what is needed to get the answers on the ground to 7 make a decision. The team will continue to have discussions and determine whether they have 8 enough information or if additional analyses are needed. 9

10 Joe Buchanan, WDFW, said since the majority of the model is already built that there would only be 11 costs associated with modifications of the grow out period. He said the challenge ahead is to 12 determine the overall funding needed to bring the key modelers together. He suggested that it would 13 be best to determine this sooner rather than later. 14 15 Paula Swedeen voiced support of the 100-year model and amending the model sooner rather than 16 later. 17 18 Tom Laurie asked if aggressively controlling the barred owl is the quickest way to help the spotted 19 owl. Buchanan responded that an Environmental Impact Statement was recently completed by the 20 USFW to evaluate the effects of the management of barred owls. This effort is set to begin on the 21 ground sometime in the next 12 months. He also said that having a reduced number of barred owls 22 across the landscape is the quickest way to help the spotted owl. He also said having a reduced 23 number of barred owls should greatly help both species coexist. 24 25 NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL IMPLEMENTATION TEAM NEXT STEPS 26 Lauren Burnes, DNR, provide a brief update what the Team will be working on: 27 • Continue to explore conservation funding options for the Rivers and Habitat Open Space 28

program. 29 • Explore scope and structure of the Safe Harbor Agreements. 30 31 TFW POLICY COMMITTEE’S 2014 ACTIVITIES 32 Stephen Bernath and Adrian Miller, Co-chairs provided an update on past activities and a status of 33 2015 activities. 34 35 Tom Laurie acknowledge the tremendous amount of work accomplished last year and appreciates the 36 work done by all the stakeholders. 37 38 2015 projects will include: 39 • Type F - Conducting an electro-fishing workshop and two off-channel habitat field trips 40 • Bull Trout Overlay Project recommendations 41 • Board Manual guidance on Type N Water 42 43 At the May meeting Miller and Bernath will provide a recap of the field trips and a water typing 44 status update. 45 46


Bernath also provided an update on the recently completed bull trout overlay study that is currently 1 before Policy for action. He said that at the last Policy meeting consensus could not be reached on an 2 action moving forward. He said a request for dispute resolution is highly likely. 3 4 Everett asked if the 2015 work plan is manageable. Bernath responded that Type F will consume a 5 majority of Policy’s time in the spring. He said depending on the outcome of concern on the bull trout 6 overlay study, would still be a priority to reach consensus. He said they are also aware and await the 7 Board’s decision on the small forest landowner alternate plan template and how that will influence 8 their workload. 9 10 CMER COMMITTEE’S 2014 ACCOMPLISHMENTS 11 Mark Hicks, Department of Ecology, presented CMER’s accomplishments for 2014, which included: 12 • Three studies and a revised Wetlands Research Strategy delivered to Policy; 13 • Four study reports completed; 14 • Substantial progress made towards completing the Type N Hardrock Study; 15 • Three new studies using the pilot lean process; 16 • Conducted extended monitoring on several projects; and 17 • Stayed on budget. 18 19 Todd Baldwin, Kalispel Tribe, provided highlights on the following: 20 • Bull Trout Overlay Project; and 21 • Type N Forest Hydrology Study. 22 23 Everett noted the excellent work done by the science members and thanked the co-chairs for their 24 commitment. 25

26 PUBLIC COMMENT 27 Chris Mendoza, CMER member, stated that CMER does not make recommendations to Policy as 28 reported earlier in the meeting. He said Board Manual Section 22 details the process for CMER and 29 Policy for dealing with completed studies. 30 31 Peter Goldman, WFLC, said the most important item on the Board’s work plan is developing a 32 permanent water typing rule. He said that it is not as complex as stated earlier. He said that there is 33 agreement with a vast majority of caucuses including the Federal caucus on what a permanent rule 34 could and should look like. He said some caucuses are raising issues that appear to be stalling tactics 35 and the need to renegotiate the commitments in the Habitat Conservation Plan. 36 37 PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT ZONE BIRD RESAMPLE 38 REPORT 39 Doug Hooks, WFPA, encouraged the Board to accept Policy’s recommendation and take no action. 40 41 RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT ZONE BIRD RESAMPLE REPORT 42 Chris Hanlon-Meyer, DNR, presented CMER’s finalized report titled “Riparian Management Zone 43 Resample (birds) Final Report”. He said that scientists revisited study sites 10 years post-harvest to 44 examine potential effects on the bird species assemblage over the longer-term. He said the study 45 found no significant harvest treatment effects on bird response based on their total abundance, 46 richness and the responses of the large majority of individual bird species. He recommended the 47 Board accept the report and Policy’s recommendation to take no action on the study. 48


Dr. Mark Hayes, WDFW, said the original study was done based on pre Forests and Fish rules, 1 however when the study was implemented the application of those treatments was somewhat 2 irregular. He said that it was designed to have the set of treatments with state buffers and the buffer 3 widths in those treatments were more variable than the intended application. He said the results 4 demonstrated that the buffers larger than the range now applied to fish bearing streams were adequate 5 in context with the bird portion of the study. While the original study was not designed to address 6 non-fish bearing streams it did show basic support of the rule. 7 8 Tom Laurie asked if the mix of species change or was one dominant over the others. Hayes 9 responded that there was some change in species that had mostly to do with an increase in species 10 richness. 11 12 Paula Swedeen asked what range of bird species were sampled and if there was any analysis of the 13 effects of buffers widths in a landscape context. Hayes responded that the study covered all birds that 14 could be detected and the only restrictions were because of the broad geographic scope that some 15 species were excluded because of geographic boundaries. 16 17 Everett asked what the next steps are and whether there were additional studies to follow. Hayes 18 responded that there are no immediate plans at this time to design a study that builds on this one. 19 20 MOTION: Heather Ballash moved the Forest Practices Board accept TFW Policy Committee’s 21

recommendation to take no action on the Riparian Management Zone Bird Resample 22 Report. 23

24 SECONDED: Court Stanley 25 26 ACTION: Motion passed unanimously. 27 28 PUBLIC COMMENT OF SMALL FOREST LANDOWNER ALTERNATE PLAN 29 TEMPLATE 30 Vic Musselman said he supports the proposed template and urged the Board to accept it and move it 31 through the process. 32 33 Mary Scurlock, Conservation Caucus, asked the Board to defer action on the proposal initiation to 34 allow for additional screening by DNR to ensure that it meets the requirements of an alternate plan 35 template. She also shared their concern regarding Policy’s workload and the impact this project 36 would have on current assignments. 37 38 Stephen Bernath, Department of Ecology, stated that timing for this proposal moving forward is an 39 issue for Policy and encouraged WFFA to meet with the different caucuses to discuss the proposal 40 content to better understand their goal and to have even a better product before going to the Adaptive 41 Management Program Administrator (AMPA). 42 43 Sam Comstock said he supports WFFA’s proposal for an alternate plan template. 44 45 Karen Terwilleger, WFPA, said they support the proposal moving forward to get the process started. 46 47 48 49


SMALL FOREST LANDOWNER ALTERNATE PLAN TEMPLATE 1 Elaine Oneil, WFFA, presented an Alternate Plan Template Proposal Initiation for Westside riparian 2 management zones. She indicated the template development has been a very extensive process that 3 included input on the proposal initiation and content requirements from DNR, template ideas from 4 more than 40 small landowners coupled with the development of scientific rationale by a fish 5 biologist with extensive experience in the CMER process and external review by an independent 6 peer. 7 8 She said the proposal includes five elements required for the proposal initiation process and that she 9 would focus on three elements: level of urgency, outstanding agreements and best available science. 10 11 She requested the Board to 12 • Direct the AMPA to place the proposed alternate template into the program for CMER and Policy 13

review; 14 • Provide a reasonable timeline for review and decision on approval of the template and its 15

revisions; and 16 • Approve recommendations from the Adaptive Management Program for including the template in 17

a revision to the Board Manual and guidance documents. 18 19 Marc Engel, DNR, reviewed the next steps in the process and acknowledged that the proposal 20 initiation is a complete packet. He said staff recommend that the Board accept the proposal and ask 21 the AMPA to provide a timeline and list of tasks needed to execute the proposal through the process. 22 23 Paula Swedeen asked at what point in the process would we determine whether it was a template or a 24 rule. Engel responded that the AMPA does not decide whether rule or guidance, it would be 25 discussed among the stakeholders and possibly figured out through the discussion. 26 27 Joe Stohr stated that while he would like to move the proposal forward he sees the waiting period to 28 be long and does not want to over burden staff. 29 30 Bob Guenther stated he supports the proposal moving forward today and understands the timing may 31 not by right due to competing priorities, however having a path forward is better than no movement 32 at all. 33 34 MOTION: Joe Stohr moved the Forest Practices Board accept Washington Farm Forestry 35

Association’s Alternate Plan Proposal Initiation. He further moved the Board direct 36 the TFW Policy Committee to review the proposal sufficiently to provide to the Board 37 at their May 2015 meeting a timeline along with identified tasks needed to fully 38 evaluate the proposal. 39

40 SECONDED: Bob Guenther 41 42 Board Discussion: 43 Everett acknowledged the amount of work involved in preparing the proposal and said he appreciates 44 the understanding of the small landowner community as far as the next steps to come. 45 46 ACTION: Motion passed unanimously. 47 48


PUBLIC COMMENT ON BOARD’S 2015 WORK PLAN 1 Mary Scurlock, Conservation Caucus, stated that there is no consensus as stated earlier in the day 2 relating to the Type N progress – rather the process is stalled. She said that perhaps the group is at an 3 impasse to develop draft guidance and suggested the DNR initiate a board manual process to deal 4 with in that forum. She also suggested that the Board ask Policy for a detailed progress report for the 5 August meeting. 6 7 2015 WORK PLANNING 8 Marc Engel, DNR, reviewed some of the targeted completion dates with the Board. He also indicated 9 some revisions to the completion dates—Section 7 and riparian management zone (RMZ) 10 clarification rule making changes from August to November and Clean Water Act update at the May 11 meeting. 12 13 Tom Laurie supported the RMZ clarification rulemaking as this is a result of the Compliance 14 Monitoring program. 15 16 Everett stated he is inclined to leave the Type N completion date as August until more is known. He 17 said the Board can review the work plan again at the May meeting and make any additional changes 18 at that time. 19 20 Swedeen requested that the Board ask Policy to provide a status report on Type N at the May 21 meeting. Everett agreed, and asked Policy to include the update in their staff memo on priorities. 22 23 Everett also noted the change to the work plan at the May meeting depending on the 24 recommendations on the small forest landowner template. 25 26 MOTION: Bob Guenther moved the Forest Practices Board approve the 2015 Work Plan as 27

modified today. 28 29 SECONDED: Carmen Smith 30 31 ACTION: Motion passed unanimously. 32 33 DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY’S NONPOINT PLAN 34 Stephen Bernath, Department of Ecology (DOE) reviewed with the Board the relationship between 35 the Board and the Clean Water Act and how the nonpoint plan fits in as described in the Forest 36 Practices Act, RCW 76.09.010. He also shared the basics of the Clean Water Act which includes the 37 water quality standards for the State are set by DOE and the effectiveness monitoring is done by the 38 Adaptive Management Program. 39 Ben Rau, DOE, provided a brief history and then described how the nonpoint plan is being 40 developed. He said that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognizes that pollution from 41 nonpoint sources remains the leading cause of impairment to the nation’s waters. 42 43 He said the report will cover all nonpoint pollution along with urban storm water, agriculture, septic 44 systems, marinas/recreational boating, and forestry. He said the Forest Practice Rules and the 45 adaptive management process will also be included in the plan. 46 47


He said the plan must be submitted to EPA by June 30, 2015 and the process will include public 1 participation. 2 3 Everett asked Rau to return in May for an update since the report will be farther along. 4 5 EXECUTIVE SESSION 6 None. 7 8 Meeting adjourned at 2:50 p.m. 9 10


FOREST PRACTICES BOARD 1 Adaptive Management Program Science Conference 2

February 11 & 12, 2015 3 OB2 Auditorium, DSHS Building, Olympia, Washington 4

5 Board Members attended the science conference to hear updates on studies that may come before 6 them for action in the future. The studies included: 7 • Type N Experimental Buffer Treatment Study – Hard Rock 8 • Wetlands Research Strategy 9 • Eastern Washington Type N Forest Hydrology Study 10 • Effectiveness of Riparian Management Prescriptions in Protecting and Maintaining Shade and 11

Temperature 12 • Eastern Washington Riparian Assessment Project (EWRAP) 13 • Stream-Associated Amphibian Response to Manipulation of Forest Canopy Shading 14 • Breeding Bird Response to Riparian Buffer Width 15 • Riparian Hardwood Conversion Study 16 17 Conference ended at 3:00 p.m. 18


PETER GOLDMARK Washington State Commissioner of Public Lands

MEMORANDUM TO: Forest Practices Board FROM: Hans Berge, Adaptive Management Program Administrator DATE: April 22, 2015 SUBJECT: Adaptive Management Program Quarterly Update This Quarterly update includes a summary of work to date on the pilot LiDAR hydrologic model evaluation, ongoing work at CMER, and an update on the WFFA alternate plan template review. Model Evaluation The Forest Practices Board directed the Adaptive Management Program Administrator (AMPA) “to scope and initiate a pilot project to re-run the existing hydrologic model using LiDAR data, including at least two watersheds; one westside and one eastside” at the 11 February 2014 Board Meeting. Over the past two months I have worked to gather background materials and engaged stakeholders that worked on the original model to assemble a team of experts and interested parties to scope the work for the pilot, and identify appropriate watersheds based upon data readily available. At this time, we are still gathering existing data and LiDAR coverages. This project will be contracted this summer and completed by the end of fiscal year 2016 (as outlined in the proposed biennial budget). CMER Updates The CMER Science Conference was held on 11-12 February 2015, and was an unequivocal success. The first day of the conference was focused on the Type N Experimental Buffer Treatment in Basalt Lithologies (Hard Rock) Study. These experiments were designed to examine the effectiveness of current riparian buffer prescription on non-fish bearing streams in protecting aquatic resources. The results that were presented at the conference have been drafted into 13 chapters and are in the review stage at CMER or are being packaged together for Independent Science Peer Review (ISPR). WFFA Alternate Plan Template At the 10 February 2015 Forest Practices Board Meeting, the Washington Farm Forestry Association (WFFA) submitted a proposed alternate plan template for consideration by the Board for inclusion into the Adaptive Management Program. The Board directed the AMPA to review WFFA’s alternate rule template and make a recommendation at the May 2015 Board Meeting. At the 10 April 2015 monthly Policy meeting, I recommended a path to evaluate the template which had both a science and policy track for consideration. After lengthy discussion at Policy, consensus was not reached and the decision was made to spend more time at the May Policy Meeting to craft a recommendation for the Board that would meet consensus at Policy. I believe the reason that consensus was not reached had more to do

1111 WASHINGTON ST SE PO BOX 47041 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-7041 TEL: (360) 902-1250 FAX: (360) 902-1780 TTY: (360) 902-1125

Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer

Forest Practices Board April 17, 2012 Page 2 with the number of topics on the agenda at the meeting and the short amount of time that we were able to discuss the recommendation, rather than any substantive disagreements within Policy. I am confident that Policy will be able to reach consensus on a plan to move forward, and I would like to opportunity to present the consensus based recommendation at the August 2015 Board Meeting.

1111 WASHINGTON ST SE PO BOX 47000 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-7000 FAX: (360) 902-1775 TTY: (360) 902-1125 TEL: (360) 902-1000

Equal Opportunity Employer / Affirmative Action Employer

PETER GOLDMARK Commissioner of Public Lands

MEMORANDUM April 08, 2015 TO: Forest Practices Board FROM: Marc Ratcliff

Forest Practices Policy and Services Section SUBJECT: Board Manual Development Update The following provides information on the current progress and anticipated development for amending sections of the Forest Practices Board Manual:

• Section 16, Guidelines for Evaluating Potentially Unstable Slopes and Landforms. DNR facilitated stakeholder meetings are occurring for completing the second phase of the Board’s motion to amend this section. The group is currently researching and comparing methodologies for calculating run-out paths and delivery from landslides;

• Section 7, Guidelines for Riparian Management Zones. This Section will be amended in

conjunction with development of draft RMZ rule language. Manual Section work will coincide with the Board’s RMZ rule making timeline;

• Section 23 (Part 2), Guidelines for Field Protocol to Identify the Uppermost Point of Perennial Flow in Type Np Waters. DNR will convene a stakeholder process to develop this Section when the TFW Policy Committee has completed development of a wet season methodology to identify the upper most point of perennial flow in Type Np Waters.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions at 360.902.1414 or [email protected]. MR

FOREST PRACTICES DIVISION 1111 WASHINGTON ST SE MS 47012 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-70 TEL: (360) 902-1400 FAX: (360) 902-1428 TTY: (360) 902-1125 WWW.DNR.WA.GOV



MEMORANDUM April 21, 2015 TO: Forest Practices Board FROM: Marc Engel, Assistant Division Manager, Policy and Services Forest Practices SUBJECT: 2015 Rule Making Activity Staff will request your approval at the May meeting to file a CR101 to begin rule development on the riparian management zone clarification. I look forward to answering any questions you may have on May 12.

1111 WASHINGTON ST SE PO BOX 47041 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-7041 TEL: (360) 902-1250 FAX: (360) 902-1780 TTY: (360) 902-1125



April 22, 2015 MEMORANDUM TO: Forest Practices Board FROM: Marc Engel, Assistant Division Manager, Policy and Services Forest Practices SUBJECT: Spotted Owl Conservation Advisory Group Update The rule establishing the Spotted Owl Conservation Advisory Group, WAC 222-16-010, requires an annual reporting to the Board of reviews conducted by this group. The rule then asks the Board to determine the need to maintain the Spotted Owl Conservation Advisory Group. The Spotted Owl Conservation Advisory Group evaluates the need, based on available habitat, to maintain northern spotted owl site centers in circles where the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has approved the absence of northern spotted owls, based on protocol surveys, within the suitable habitat supporting a northern spotted owl site center. Within the last year there were no northern spotted owl surveys submitted for review and approval to the WDFW. As such, the Spotted Owl Conservation Advisory Group did not meet. Should you have any questions before your May meeting, please feel free to contact me at 360.902.1309 or [email protected].

1111 WASHINGTON ST SE MS 47001 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-7001 TEL: (360) 902-1000 FAX: (360) 902-1775 TRS: 711 TTY: (360) 902-1125 WWW.DNR.WA.GOV

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER



MEMORANDUM April 13, 2015 TO: Forest Practices Board FROM: Marc Ratcliff

Forest Practices Policy and Services Section SUBJECT: Board Manual Section 16, Phase 2 Progress DNR staff is facilitating a technical/Policy stakeholder process to complete the Boards second phase of Board Manual Section 16 development. This involves identifying methods to assess run-out and delivery of potentially unstable slopes and landforms. As requested by the Board, DNR is developing the guidance in two steps:

• Conducting a TFW Policy stakeholder review of the technical guidance, organizational flow and sequencing of the current material in Section 16. These meetings were helpful to clarify language and material organization completed by the qualified expert group during the first phase; and

• Researching the science and framing the process to aid forest practitioners and qualified experts for addressing run-out and delivery potential when proposed forest activities pose a risk to public safety. Several empirical methods and models are available for calculating debris flows for shallow landslides. The group is comparing these methods and discussing the applicability for applying these approaches in Washington’s landslide provinces.

These meetings will continue through May. Once the technical group have completed their task of incorporating run-out and delivery guidance into the manual, DNR staff is planning to conduct an additional review period of the combined material by TFW Policy stakeholders. This aggressive work schedule is to achieve the anticipated approval of this section at the August 2015 Board meeting. Marc Engel and I will be available to provide a status of the group progress and answer any questions to date. Please feel free to contact me with any questions at 360.902.1414 or [email protected]. MR

FOREST PRACTICES DIVISION 1111 WASHINGTON ST SE MS 47012 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-70 TEL: (360) 902-1400 FAX: (360) 902-1428 TTY: (360) 902-1125 WWW.DNR.WA.GOV


Memorandum

April 17, 2015 TO: Forest Practices Board

FROM: Mark Hicks, Forest Water Quality Coordinator SUBJECT: Clean Water Act Milestone Update The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) committed to provide the Forest Practices Board (Board) with periodic updates on the progress being made to meet milestones established for retaining the Clean Water Act (CWA) Assurances for the forest practices rules and associated programs. Our last update to the Board occurred at your September 2014 Board meeting. This current update covers the period through April 2015. During this period four CWA milestones were completed and progress was initiated on three others. Completed milestones include developing guidance that will strengthen the overall process for issuing alternate plans; and completing the Bull Trout Overlay Temperature Study, the Forested Wetlands Literature Synthesis, and a revised Wetland Program Research Strategy. During this period Policy also reviewed the Forests and Fish Report’s Schedule L1 research questions related to the Mass Wasting Research Program, and CMER initiated a review of Chapter 7 of its’ Protocols and Standards Manual in addition to starting scoping work on the Rule Identified Landform (RIL) Criteria and Forest Wetlands Effectiveness Monitoring studies. Also during this period, however, one milestone was changed from “Completed” to “Off Track” to reflect the substantial delay in implementing a key component of that milestone. The Type N strategy had been noted as complete in prior updates to the Board. The need remains, however, to implement the portion of the strategy related to resolving issues with identifying the uppermost point of perennial flows. Having this element being placed on hold for such a long time has prompted the need to highlight the issue as still incomplete. Completed milestones related to process steps or improvements must be retained in order for the Assurances to be retained. The intent of the milestones is to secure programmatic improvements and make greater progress on completing research studies. The changes and

accomplishments associated with the milestones are meant to ensure that the forestry programs can be relied on long term to meet water quality objectives. Enclosed are two tables showing the CWA milestones and summarizing their current status. The first table shows the non-CMER project milestones. These milestones are implemented outside of the CMER research program and are largely within the control of the Forest Practices Operations Section of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) or the Timber Fish and Wildlife Policy Committee (Policy). The second table lays out the progress being made on the CMER research study milestones. Changes in status occurring since your last briefing are highlighted in red font for your convenience. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns (360) 407-6477. Enclosure

Summary of CWA Assurances Milestones and current status: Non-CMER Project Milestones

Summarized Description of Milestone Status as of April 20151

2009 July 2009: CMER budget and work plan will reflect CWA priorities.

Completed

September 2009: Identify a strategy to secure stable, adequate, long-term funding for the AMP.

Completed The strategy has been unsuccessful, but this milestone remains “completed” based on the continued efforts by key participants to secure the funding.

October 2009: Complete Charter for the Compliance Monitoring Stakeholder Guidance Committee.

Completed

December 2009: Initiate a process for flagging CMER projects that are having trouble with their design or implementation.

Completed

December 2009: Compliance Monitoring Program to develop plans and timelines for assessing compliance with rule elements such as water typing, shade, wetlands, haul roads and channel migration zones.

Completed

December 2009: Evaluate the existing process for resolving field disputes and identify improvements that can be made within existing statutory authorities and review times.

Completed

December 2009: Complete training sessions on the AMP protocols and standards for CMER, and Policy and offer to provide this training to the Board. Identify and implement changes to improve performance or clarity at the soonest practical time.

Underway Initial training completed, and issues identified for improvement were added to the Policy and CMER task lists for future action. CMER has updated 6 chapters of its’ Protocol and Standards Manual and is beginning a review of Chapter 7. Policy has reviewed FFR Schedule L1 research questions for both the Type N and the Unstable Slopes Research Programs.

2010 January 2010: Ensure opportunities during regional RMAP annual reviews to obtain input from Ecology, WDFW, and tribes on road work priorities.

Completed

1

Non-CMER Project Milestones


February 2010: Develop a prioritization strategy for water type modification review.

Completed

March 2010: Establish online guidance that clarifies existing policies and procedures pertaining to water typing.

Completed

June 2010: Review existing procedures and recommended any improvements needed to effectively track compliance at the individual landowner level.

Completed

June 2010: Establish a framework for certification and refresher courses for all participants responsible for regulatory or CMP assessments.

Completed

July 2010: Assess primary issues associated with riparian noncompliance (using the CMP data) and formulate a program of training, guidance, and enforcement believed capable of substantially increasing the compliance rate.

Completed

July 2010: Ecology in Partnership with DNR and in Consultation with the SFL advisory committee will develop a plan for evaluating the risk posed by SFL roads for the delivery of sediment to waters of the state.

Off Track

DNR has tried to get a sense of the risk by conducting a limited pilot project in its’ NW Region. A draft report was shared with Ecology in October 2014. Approximately 92% of SFLs either did not respond or denied access to DNR. Of the 76 roads surveyed on the property of willing SFLs, DNR concluded most were functioning appropriately, with 11% delivering sediment to streams. DNR has initiated efforts to obtain SFL support to expand roads survey efforts state wide. At present, DNR Stewardship and Forest Practices Foresters are conducting roads inventories where SFL permission has been granted. An additional report for all survey efforts and the status of SFL roads will be completed for all roads inventory data collected during FY 2014 and 2015. Without the jurisdictional authority to conduct a more representative survey, satisfying this milestone may not be possible. This makes it problematic to

2



determine if the rules are working to control sediment pollution from SFL properties.

July 2010: Develop a strategy to examine the effectiveness of the Type N rules in protecting water quality at the soonest possible time that includes: a) Rank and fund Type N studies as highest priorities for research, b) Resolve issue with identifying the uppermost point of perennial flow by July 2012, and c) Complete a comprehensive literature review examining effect of buffering headwater streams by September 2012.

Off Track

A strategy was developed, and Policy and its’ technical subgroups were working to implement the strategy. Conflict over providing default distances for defining the UMPPF had stalled implementation, and then when the Forest Practices Board changed Policy priorities it resulted in this implementation issue being placed on long-term hold. The prior status has been changed from “Complete” to “Off Track” to reflect the current situation.

October 2010: Conduct an initial assessment of trends in compliance and enforcement actions taken at the individual landowner level.

Completed

3



October 2010: Design a sampling plan to gather baseline information sufficient to reasonably assess the success of alternate plan process.

Completed DNR satisfied this milestone by releasing an Alternate Plan Guidance memo (12-10-14) designed to strengthen the overall process for issuing alternate plans. The guidance should help ensure approved plans are more transparent and directive in meeting the intent of the AP rules. Improvements in documentation are accompanied by directives for collecting baseline data needed to reasonably assess the success of the alternate plans. Taken as a whole, these refinements should improve confidence that the AP process is not a source of water quality degradation.

Success depends on how well the new directives are translated into action. DNR completed training in all Regions regarding rule, alternate plan board manual and memo guidance. DNR has also committed to refresher training as needed for Alternate Plans.

December 2010: Initiate process of obtaining an

independent review of the Adaptive Management Program.

Off Track

Policy support for this review waned after the state auditor’s office dropped its plans to begin a review in FY 2012. Policy is hoping internally derived changes (e.g. shorter timeline for dispute resolution and the lean process being piloted by CMER) can create enough improvements to negate the need for this milestone. No improvements are evident at this time. Policy representatives included a requirement for a process audit in draft AMP funding legislation in 2014, but that bill did not pass.

2011 December 2011: Complete an evaluation of the relative success of the water type change review strategy.

Completed

4



December 2011: Provide more complete summary information on progress of industrial landowner RMAPs.

Completed

2012 October 2012: Reassess if the procedures being used to track enforcement actions at the individual land owner’s level provides sufficient information to potentially remove assurances or otherwise take corrective action.

Completed

Initiate a program to assess compliance with the Unstable Slopes rules.

Ongoing

DNR is evaluating alternative pathways to satisfying this milestone other than using the standard post-harvest compliance monitoring framework. DNR recently assessed compliance issues in part of SW Washington in relation to concerns with the 2007 storm. Policy is now attempting to develop a process to address unstable slopes concerns which may include this milestone.

2013 November 2013: Prepare a summary report that assesses the progress of SFLs in bringing their roads into compliance with road best management practices, and any general risk to water quality posed by relying on the checklist RMAP process for SFLs.

Off Track

Discussed above for Oct 2010 survey milestone.

5

CMER Research Milestones

Description of Milestone Status as of April 20151

2009 Complete: Hardwood Conversion – Temperature Case Study

Completed

Study Design: Wetland Mitigation Effectiveness Completed

2010 Study Design: Type N Experimental in Incompetent Lithology

Completed

Complete: Mass Wasting Prescription-Scale Monitoring

Completed

Scope: Mass Wasting Landscape-Scale Effectiveness

Off Track

No work has occurred. Policy moved this project to the hold list pending review as part of developing the unstable slopes research strategy. Note that it was inadvertently omitted from the actual list that went to the Board.

Scope: Eastside Type N Effectiveness Completed

2011 Complete: Solar Radiation/Effective Shade Completed

Complete: Bull Trout Overlay Temperature Completed

Implement: Type N Experimental in Incompetent Lithology

Underway

Preharvest monitoring is complete and all but one basin is scheduled to be harvested on time. AMP representatives are working with this last landowner to see if harvest timing can be adjusted.

Study Design: Mass Wasting Landscape-Scale Effectiveness

Off Track

Policy moved this project to the hold list pending review as part of developing the unstable slopes research strategy. Note that it was inadvertently omitted from the actual list that went to the board.

2012 Complete: Buffer Integrity-Shade Effectiveness Completed

Literature Synthesis: Forested Wetlands Literature Synthesis

Completed

6



Scoping: Examine the effectiveness of the RILs in representing slopes at risk of mass wasting.

Underway

TWIG developing project objectives and critical questions.

Study Design: Eastside Type N Effectiveness Underway

Completed supplemental field work in 2014 to help in developing a study design in 2015.

2013 Scoping: Forested Wetlands Effectiveness Study Underway

TWIG formed and will begin work in May 2015.

Wetlands Program Research Strategy Completed

Scope: Road Prescription-Scale Effectiveness Monitoring

Underway

TWIG evaluating the Best Available Science to support developing study design alternatives.

Study Design: Examine the effectiveness of the RILs in representing slopes at risk of mass wasting.

Earlier Stage Underway

Project is in the scoping stage.

Implement: Eastside Type N Effectiveness Earlier Stage Underway

Project is in the study design stage.

2014 Complete: Type N Experimental in Basalt Lithology

On-Track

Study Design: Road Prescription-Scale Effectiveness Monitoring


Project is in the scoping stage.

Scope: Type F Experimental Buffer Treatment Underway

TWIG evaluating the Best Available Science to support developing study design alternatives.

Implementation: Examine the effectiveness of the RILs in representing slopes at risk of mass wasting


TWIG developing project objectives and critical questions.

Study Design: Forested Wetlands Effectiveness Study


Project is currently in the scoping stage.

2015 Complete: First Cycle of Extensive Temperature Monitoring

Underway

Of the four strata: one stratum is complete and

7



two are in CMER review. Problems using the DNR hydro layer to find Type Np study streams on the eastside thwarted efforts to find sites for the final strata. Policy decided not to fund temperature monitoring on the final strata. Reports on the three tested strata expected to be complete in summer 2015.

Scope: Watershed Scale Assess. of Cumulative Effects

Not Progressing

Scope: Amphibians in Intermittent Streams (Phase III)

Not Progressing

Project milestone exists only if needed to fill research gaps left from Type N Experimental in Basalt Lithology.

2017 Study design: Watershed Scale Assess. of Cumulative Effects

Not Progressing

Study Design: Amphibians in Intermittent Streams (Phase III)

Not Progressing

Project milestone exists only if needed to fill research gaps left from Type N Experimental in Basalt Lithology.

2018 Complete: Roads Sub-basin Effectiveness Earlier Stage Underway

Resample for trend analysis planned for 2022. This later project timeline does not conflict with the intention of this milestone. Ecology agrees it’s prudent to wait until RMAP time extensions have ended before conducting further trend sampling. RMAP programs implemented through DNR Forest Practices Operations may also negate the need for this follow-up sample of progress in fixing roads.

Implement: Watershed Scale Assess. of Cumulative Effects

Not Progressing

Complete: Type N Experimental in Incompetent Lithology

On Track

2019 Complete: Eastside Type N Effectiveness Underway

Project will likely be completed later than this milestone due to the delay in project initiation. Current projection is to finish in 2015.

8

1 Status terminology: “Completed” - means milestone has been satisfied (includes those both on schedule and late). “On Track” - means work is occurring that appears likely to satisfy milestone on schedule. “Underway” - means work towards milestone is actively proceeding, but likely off schedule. “Earlier Stage Underway” – means project initiated, but is at an earlier stage then the listed milestone. “Not Progressing” - means no work has begun, or work initiated has effectively stopped. “Off Track” - means: 1) No work has begun and inadequate time remains, 2) key stakeholders are

not interested in completing the milestone, or 3) attempt at solution was inadequate and no further effort at developing an acceptable solution is planned.

9


MEMORANDUM April 8, 2015 TO: Forest Practices Board FROM: Donelle Mahan, Forest Practices Assistant Division Manager, Operations SUBJECT: Western Gray Squirrel At the November 12, 2013, the Board directed the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to annually report on the status of management plans and the success of the voluntary approach. DNR and WDFW will present the second annual report at the May 12, 2015 board meeting. Administrative and Operational Mechanisms DNR and WDFW staff worked together to look at administrative and operational improvements to provide WGS protection measures as part of approved forest practices applications. DNR staff has incorporated agreed upon improvements into FPA processing guidance, attached, to be applied for all applications containing WGS habitat. Key components of this guidance include noting the presence of WGS or their habitat on the DNR office checklist which becomes part of the FPA. This provides notification on all new FPAs sent out for review to the DNR forest practices foresters and appropriate WDFW biologists that WGS or their habitat may be present within the proposed forest practices activity areas. The WGS processing guidance also requires DNR to include a note on the FPA Notice of Decision page acknowledging the presence of WGS or WGS habitat in the harvest vicinity, and offers the assistance of WDFW staff. Though this note is not a condition of the application, it is expected to inform the FPA applicant of the possible presence of WGS or their habitat and provide them with a WDFW contact to improve communication, and increase the likelihood of voluntary compliance. If you have any questions please contact me at 360.902.1405 or [email protected]. /Attachment

1111 WASHINGTON ST SE i PO BOX 47041 i OLYMPIA, WA 98504-7041 TEL: (360) 902-1250 i FAX: (360) 902-1780i TTY: (360) 902-1125


1

2014 Annual Report to the Forest Practices Board

The Status of a Voluntary Cooperative Approach for the

Western Gray Squirrel

May 12, 2015

SPECIES BACKGROUND The western gray squirrel (WGS) was listed by the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission as State Threatened effective November 14, 1993. The species is recognized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a Federal Species of Concern. In Washington State, the species occurs in three highly localized areas in the oak woodlands and conifer forests of Klickitat and southern Yakima counties; low to mid-elevation conifer forests in Okanogan and Chelan counties; and the oak woodlands and conifer forests on Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Pierce and Thurston counties. The WGS inhabit transitional forests of mature Oregon white oak, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and various riparian tree species (Linders and Stinson 2007). Habitat quality in Washington is assumed to be relatively poor compared to other parts of the species’ range due to the lower number of oak species and degradation of pine and oak habitats. The cumulative effects of land conversion, logging, sheep grazing, and fire suppression largely eliminated the open-grown stands of mature and old growth pine and have degraded oak woodlands (Linders and Stinson 2007). The most recent population estimate for Washington was between 468 and 1,400 squirrels, based on data gathered from 1994 to 2005 (Linders and Stinson 2007). Population size can fluctuate dramatically with disease and changes in food supply.

HISTORY OF FOREST PRACTICES BOARD ACTIONS

In 2013 staff from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) worked together to explore administrative and operational improvements to provide WGS protection measures as part of approved forest practices applications. DNR staff then incorporated these improvements into Forest Practices Application (FPA) processing guidance that have been applied to all FPAs containing WGS habitat. Key components of this guidance include:

Noting the presence of WGS or their habitat on the DNR Office Checklist page which becomes part of the FPA.

Providing WDFW a courtesy email that an FPA has triggered a “hit” for potential WGS within the vicinity of the FPA. This provides notification on all new FPAs

2

sent out for review to DNR forest practices foresters, WDFW biologists, and interested stakeholders that WGS or their habitat may be present within the proposed forest practices activity areas.

DNR includes a “note” on the FPA Notice of Decision page acknowledging the presence of WGS or their habitat in the harvest vicinity, and offers the assistance of WDFW staff. Though this note is not a condition of the application, it is expected to inform the FPA proponent of the potential occurrence of WGS or their habitat and to provide WDFW contact information, further improving communications and increasing the likelihood of voluntary compliance.

On November 12, 2013, the Board directed DNR and WDFW to annually report on the status of management plans and the success of the voluntary management approach. On September 3, 2014, DNR and WDFW staff presented the 2013 WGS annual report. A public rule petition was also submitted to the Board. The Board did not accept this rule petition; however, they indicated that further assessment of the voluntary management approach would occur after the status review was complete, and after additional information was obtained from tracking of FPAs and management plans.

WORKSHOPS/ TRAINING/OUTREACH

On March 11, 2014, WDFW held a WGS workshop for headquarters and regional WDFW staff involved with management and conservation of WGS. The intent of this meeting was to bring all staff up to date regarding present WGS conservation efforts, including 2013 actions regarding petitions for rule-making, current FPA screening methods for WGS, FPA-related WGS nest surveys, WGS Management Plan development efforts, FPA processing and improvements, and overall staff coordination of the agency’s WGS conservation actions. Results of the meeting included identification of both short- and long-term needs within WDFW, including development of a strategy for updating WGS population estimates, assessing current WGS distribution, refining a landscape-level suitable habitat map, and identifying how to effectively prioritize WGS conservation at the landscape scale. On December 16, 2014, WDFW representatives provided an update to the Small Forest Landowner Advisory Committee on WGS biology, actions taken in response to the recent rule petition to uplist the species, the ongoing status review, and the voluntary management approach. In order to improve upon the success of the voluntary management approach and conservation of the WGS, further discussions are occurring for possible options to provide outreach and education to small forest landowners. As a start, a newsletter has been developed to post on DNR’s Small Forest Landowner webpage.

2014 FOREST PRACTICES APPLICATIONS/NOTIFICATIONS (FPA/NS)

The process changes for screening FPA/Ns with the potential to impact WGSs (mentioned above) began in November of 2013. Using WDFW’s GIS location data for documented WGS nests, colonies and/or potentially suitable habitat, WDFW and DNR both screen FPA/Ns for potential WGS impacts. DNR also notifies WDFW of all FPA/Ns within ¼-mile of these locations via email. WDFW then further evaluates the FPA/Ns for potential WGS conflicts, working with the landowner/land manager to conduct WGS nest surveys (as needed), discussing forest management goals and options, and developing voluntary WGS

3

management plans. These management plans incorporate conservation measures identified in WDFW’s Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Management Recommendations for WGSs. In order to better evaluate the effectiveness of the voluntary WGS management approach, in December 2013, WDFW began actively tracking more detailed FPA/N information for potential WGS conflicts. Information collected includes FPA/N number, date of posting in the Forest Practice Application Review System (FPARS), applicant name, whether they are a large or small landowner, if a WGS nest survey was needed or completed, if a WGS Management Plan was necessary or developed, and any additional notes or pertinent information. In the 2013 Annual Report to the Forest Practices Board, results from this tracking effort were presented from December 13 (when the tracking was initiated) through April 11, 2014. This report covers the calendar year for 2014, so there is some overlap for about 3 months of tracking data. The following provides a summary of FPA/Ns that triggered a WGS “hit” from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014:

A total of 109 FPA/Ns were identified as potentially being associated with WGS; Of these 109 WGS-related FPA/Ns, 88 FPA/Ns were located in Klickitat County, 15

were located in Okanogan County, one was located in Skamania County, one was located in Clark County, one was located in Chelan County, one was located in Pierce County, and two were located in Thurston County;

o Three (3) of the FPA/Ns were renewals of existing FPAs; o Four (4) FPA/Ns were notices of Withdrawal/Closure; o One FPA/N was a Transfer of Timber Owner/Operator Notice; o One FPA/N was a re-submittal of a previously withdrawn FPA;

Of the total FPA/Ns, 42 were associated with large/industrial landowners, 67 were associated with small forest landowners.

WESTERN GRAY SQUIRREL SITE MANAGEMENT PLANS

Throughout 2014, WDFW continued its WGS conservation efforts with landowners, conducting WGS nest surveys and coordinating with landowners to implement WGS management plans. The following is a summary of management plan development and implementation activity for the time period of January 1 through December 31, 2014: Of the 109 WGS-related FPA/Ns requiring evaluation or action of some kind:

100 FPA/Ns involved the need for further review, including such tasks as confirming WGS presence or absence, conducting a WGS nest survey, and/or confirming appropriate WGS protection measures to be implemented during forest practice activities:

o 55 FPA/Ns resulted in no WGS nests and no need for WGS management plans;

o 12 FPA/Ns were for salvage activities associated with the “Carlton Complex Fire” in the Okanogan region, requiring no WGS management plans;

o 2 FPA/Ns were for salvage activities associated with the “28 Mile Fire” in the Klickitat region, requiring no WGS management plans;

4

o 31 FPA/Ns required development or implementation of a WGS management plan:

10 FPA/Ns were associated with small landowners; 21 FPA/Ns were associated with large or industrial landowners;

o Of the 31 WGS management plans, 7 included less than ideal WGS protection (e.g. leaving nest trees only, etc.). These 7 were associated with small landowners.

For the remaining 9 (of 109) FPA/Ns that required no additional action: o 3 were Renewals of FPAs and required no action; o 4 were Notice of Withdrawal/Closures and required no action; o 1 was a Notice of Transfer of Timber Owner/Operator and required no action; o 1 was a fish passage culvert project and required no action.

OTHER LANDOWNER EFFORTS

Beginning in the fall of 2010, Hancock Forest Management began leading research, along with other cooperators, pertaining to WGSs in Klickitat County. Objectives of the research include: (1) developing a detection probability model for nests, (2) quantifying the relationship between nest counts and squirrel abundance, and (3) evaluating the efficacy of using GPS telemetry to quantify squirrel use in response to forest management. To date, 18 different forest stands have been evaluated for nest detection probability. Efforts to evaluate the relationship between nest density and animal abundance continued in 2014. Additional investigations on hair snare trapping methods were tested with various sized traps. The hair snare trapping method produces considerable samples for conducting mark/recapture studies. This trapping method is also a viable method to use for presence/absence investigations.

PROTECTION BY COUNTIES

Washington’s Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) requires that local jurisdictions protect critical areas, including fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Regulations (WAC 365-190-130(4)(a)) specify that counties should identify and classify habitat for federal and state listed and sensitive species and should utilize WDFW’s Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) database when doing so. The PHS database contains GIS location data for Western Gray Squirrels and is routinely requested by counties to support their land use planning. This is the same data that WDFW biologists use to screen FPA/Ns and other proposals going through the State Environmental Policy Act process for potential project impacts to the Western Gray Squirrel.

RCW REVISIONS

A WDFW Omnibus Enforcement bill was passed by Legislation in March of 2014 which included amendments to RCW 77.15.120 and RCW 77.15.130. These amendments clarified that it is unlawful to intentionally destroy the nests or eggs of fish or wildlife designated as endangered, threatened, or sensitive (including WGS), unless authorized by rule or WDFW permit.

5

PETITION TO UP-LIST WASHINGTON STATE STATUS

A petition was received from the public on the 7th of February 2014 entitled “Petition for Rule Making (RCW 34.05) to list the Western Gray Squirrel as an Endangered Species”. WAC 232-12-297 outlines the process for WDFW to receive, review and take action, as needed, related to a petition to list or change the status of a listed species. In accordance with the WAC, WDFW accepted the petition because it presented scientific data to support a review of the listing status of the WGS. WDFW has initiated the formal review process to evaluate the current status of the species. Information is currently being gathered from interested parties on WGS demographics, habitat conditions, threats, management actions, and other factors until March 28th, 2015. In April, WDFW will begin compiling the best available scientific information to prepare a periodic status review for determining whether a change is warranted from the current “threatened” listing status. If the species status review document indicates that a change in classification from its current threatened status to another status is required, the public will have an opportunity to comment on the document before WDFW presents the recommendation to the Fish and Wildlife Commission for action.

2014 WDFW SURVEYS AND CONSERVATION ACTIONS

Population/Habitat Surveys Several population monitoring and research efforts have been completed for WGS in Washington. This year these include: (1) A state-wide, multi-year monitoring project using hair-sampling tubes to detect the distribution and abundance of WGS; and (2) Research pertaining to the effects of forestry practices on WGS populations at Joint Base Lewis McChord (JBLM).

Conservation Actions

WGS recovery and management actions by WDFW include: (1) the review of FPAs that may impact the species and its habitat, ensuring implementation of WDFW’s Western Gray Squirrel PHS Management Recommendations and/or preparation of management plans for willing landowners; (2) the thinning of forest understory vegetation on the Klickitat Wildlife Area to enhance WGS habitat and reduce the threat of large wildfires; (3) advising DNR staff on measures for enhancing WGS habitat on DNR lands; (4) advising JBLM forest land management staff on habitat management activities affecting the species; and 5) the preparation of professional scientific manuscripts describing the ecology and conservation of WGSs, competition with eastern gray squirrels, and population modeling.

SUMMARY

All proposed forest practice activities identified as potentially having an impact to WGSs were screened by WDFW and DNR in 2013 and 2014, a process that will continue throughout 2015 and beyond. WDFW will also be assessing the population status and distribution of WGS during the formal status review process of the species. As data becomes available through the status review and tracking of FPAs and management plans, WDFW and DNR will be better able to evaluate the effectiveness of the voluntary management approach and to provide recommendations on possible changes to protection strategies, as needed.


MEMORANDUM TO: Forest Practices Board

FROM: Hans Berge, Adaptive Management Program Administrator

DATE: April 17, 2015

SUBJECT: Biennial 15/17 CMER Budget - Action Requested Attached is the TFW Policy recommended budget for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 (15/17 biennium) for consideration by the Forest Practices Board (Board). The proposed budget follows the format of the CMER Master Project Schedule approved by the Board last August. There are a few additional items in the proposed budget that I will highlight below. Administrative and Support Staff The proposed budget for FY 16/17 remains unchanged for CMER Science Staff, Project Support, Contingency for Active Projects, and Program Administration. However, there are six changes that are important to bring to your attention. The new items are as follows: 1-Continuing Lean Improvements- staffing Env. Planner 3: this is a new position to better reflect additional workload and time constraints in the Master Project Schedule. Duties include supporting project managers and the AMPA in improving program management and communication in meeting deadlines through implementation of Lean techniques. 2-LiDAR Model: this item is not new, but the work will be carried out and completed in fiscal year 2016. This project is considered to be a pilot, and will compare the 30 m DEM with a LiDAR derived DEM in two basins (one eastside, one westside) to evaluate if LiDAR could improve the fish distribution model. 3-Riparian Function Literature Synthesis: this item is a recommendation in response to the Board request that the Adaptive Management Program reviews the alternate plan template proposed by the Washington Farm Forestry Association. Originally, the estimate was $75,000 for this work, but due to a parallel literature review by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, there are considerable savings in this item as proposed in this budget. 4-TFW Policy Committee facilitation: this item is for continued facilitation, note taking, and organization for TFW Policy Committee meetings. Given the importance and differing perspectives within the Committee on current topics, this item is particularly important. 5-CMER Conference: this item is not new, and these costs include video, use of the facility, refreshments, and printing programs. Since the conference only occurs every two years, it is in the budget for FY 17 only during this biennium.

1111 WASHINGTON ST SE i MS 47001 i OLYMPIA, WA 98504-7001 TEL: (360) 902-1000 i FAX: (360) 902-1775 i TRS: 711 i TTY: (360) 902-1125 i WWW.DNR.WA.GOV

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER

Forest Practices Board April 17, 2015 Page 2 6-Report to Legislature: this item reflects the expectation that we will need to prepare a detailed report documenting how we used the general funds allocated to the Adaptive Management Program during the 15/17 biennium in the state budget. Projects almost finished With several projects coming to a close in 2016, proposed budgets reflect costs for reviewing and editing documents. Projects in field implementation These projects are Type N experiments that are currently being sampled in the field. Project costs have been updated to reflect new information. Overall, the expected costs have been reduced. Projects in study design or conceptual stages The items in this section of the budget reflect some changes that have occurred as a result of projects being delayed (Glacial Deep Seated--Literature Review, Van Dykes Salamander Project), projects needing more information prior to moving forward (Road Prescription and Wetlands Effectiveness Study), and projects that were not well defined in the past (Extensive Alternative). Summary In summary, the Adaptive Management Program seeks to spend $3.62 and 3.64 million in fiscal years 2016 and 2017, respectively. With the assumptions of available funds, participation agreements, and the AMP request, we are expecting to have a positive balances in 2016 of $233,950 and $215,950 in fiscal year 2017. Recommendation On behalf of CMER and the TFW Policy Committee, I am requesting approval of the 15/17 biennial budget as proposed. There is an expectation that the budget may need to be revised at the August 2015 Board meeting following the adoption of the Washington state budget for the 15/17 biennium.

1111 WASHINGTON ST SE i PO BOX 47000 i OLYMPIA, WA 98504-7000 FAX: (360) 902-1775 i TTY: (360) 902-1125 i TEL: (360) 902-1000

Equal Opportunity Employer / Affirmative Action Employer

CMER Master Project ScheduleRecommended FP HCP Adaptive Management Program Priority Projects

4/17/15 - DRAFTProject Budget

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030Administrative and Support Staff

CMER Science Staff 601,000 601,000 601,000 601,000 601,000 601,000 601,000 601,000 601,000 601,000 601,000 601,000 601,000 601,000 601,000Project Support 237,000 237,000 237,000 237,000 237,000 237,000 237,000 237,000 237,000 237,000 237,000 237,000 237,000 237,000 237,000Continuing LEAN Improvements - Staffing Env Planner 3 109,500 109,500 109,500 109,500 109,500 109,500 109,500 109,500 109,500 109,500 109,500 109,500 109,500 109,500 109,500Contingency Fund for Active Projects 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000LiDAR Model 100,000Riparian Function Literature Synthesis 30,000TFW Policy Committee facilitation 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000CMER Conference (Video, facility, refreshments, programs) 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000Program Administration 267,000 267,000 267,000 267,000 267,000 267,000 267,000 267,000 267,000 267,000 267,000 267,000 267,000 267,000 267,000Report to Legislature 10,000

Projects almost finishedBuffer Integrity - Shade effectiveness (amphibian response) 22,000Type F and N Extensive Westside - Temperature (Baseline status)Eastside Type N Forest Hydrology 59,000Riparian Hardwood Conversion 80,000

Projects in field implementation

Type N Experimental Buffer Treatment Project in Hard Rock Lithologies 214,000 100,000Type N Experimental Buffer Treatment Project - Hard Rock- Amphibian Genetics - Post sample 200,000 200,000 85,000 40,000Type N Experimental Buffer Treatment Project - Hard Rock- Amphibian Demographics/Channel Metrics 165,000 245,000 153,000 153,000 75,000Type N Experimental Buffer Treatment Project in Hard Rock Lithologies - Temp/Sediment/Vegetation/Litterfall 260,000 190,000 119,000Type N Experimental Buffer Treatment Project - Soft Rock Lithologies 382,000 360,000 216,000 153,000 81,000

Projects in study design or conceptual stagesEastside Type N Riparian Effectiveness - Perennial 71,000 100,000 250,000 360,000 360,000 360,000 360,000 250,000 100,000 40,000Eastside Type N Riparian Effectiveness - Dry 80,000 75,000 150,000 330,000 330,000 360,000 360,000 200,000 100,000 40,000Westside Type F Riparian Prescription Monitoring 100,000 250,000 200,000 200,000 360,000 360,000 250,000 360,000 250,000 100,000 40,000

Unstable Slopes Criteria Evaluation and Development 150,000 150,000 150,000 100,000 75,000 Glacial Deep Seated - Literature Review 75,000 Glacial Deep Seated - Placeholder funding for strategy execution 100,000 100,000 100,000

Forested Wetlands Effectiveness Study 25,000 100,000 250,000 360,000 360,000 360,000 360,000 360,000 250,000 100,000 40,000Wetland/Stream Water Temp Interactions (Sub question) 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 25,000 Wetland Hydrologic Connectivity (Add On) 10,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 25,000Wetlands Management Zone Effectiveness Monitoring 25,000 100,000 250,000 360,000 360,000 360,000 360,000 360,000Wetland/Stream Water Temp Interactions (Sub question) 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000Wetland Hydrologic Connectivity (Sub question) 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000Wetlands Intensive Monitoring Road Prescription-Scale Effectiveness Monitoring 25,000 75,000 100,000 250,000 360,000 360,000 360,000 360,000 250,000 40,000Road Sub-Basin-Scale Effectiveness Monitoring - Resample 75,000 350,000 350,000 150,000 75,000Watershed Scale Assessment of Cumulative Effects (roads and riparian) 40,000 100,000 250,000 360,000 360,000Amphibians in Intermittent Streams 40,000 150,000 250,000 360,000 360,000 360,000 360,000 360,000 250,000 100,000 40,000Van Dykes Salamander Project 56,000 47,000 237,000 103,000 266,000 103,000Windthrow Data Synthesis 50,000Extensive Alternative (Remote Sensing Approach) 150,000 150,000 100,000 300,000Actual Expenditures 3,618,500 3,636,500 3,337,500 3,807,500 3,668,500 3,750,500 3,642,500 3,699,500 3,274,500 2,564,500 2,379,500 2,144,500 2,124,500 2,494,500 2,134,500

Available Funds

GF-S - AMP Carry Forward 240,100 240,100 240,100 240,100 240,100 240,100 240,100 240,100 240,100 240,100 240,100 240,100FFSA - AMP Carry Forward 5,472,850 5,472,850 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000Subtotal of Available Funds - AMP 5,712,950 5,712,950 4,240,100 4,240,100 4,240,100 4,240,100 4,240,100 4,240,100 4,240,100 4,240,100 4,240,100 4,240,100

TFW Participation AgreementsTribal Participation Agreements 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000NGO and County Participation Grants 259,000 259,000 259,000 259,000 259,000 259,000 259,000 259,000 259,000 259,000 259,000 259,000 Added Commitments / WSAC 216,500 216,500 216,500 216,500 216,500 216,500 216,500 216,500 216,500 216,500 216,500 216,500State Agencies 358,500 358,500 358,500 358,500 358,500 358,500 358,500 358,500 358,500 358,500 358,500 358,500 Added Commitment 71,500 71,500 71,500 71,500 71,500 71,500 71,500 71,500 71,500 71,500 71,500 71,500Subtotal of TFW Participation Agreements 3,405,500 3,405,500 3,405,500 3,405,500 3,405,500 3,405,500 3,405,500 3,405,500 3,405,500 3,405,500 3,405,500 3,405,500

ExpendituresAMP Research Expenses 3,618,500 3,636,500 3,337,500 3,807,500 3,668,500 3,750,500 3,642,500 3,699,500 3,274,500 2,564,500 2,379,500 2,144,500TFW Participation Agreements 3,405,500 3,405,500 3,405,500 3,405,500 3,405,500 3,405,500 3,405,500 3,405,500 3,405,500 3,405,500 3,405,500 3,405,500Total Expenditures 7,024,000 7,042,000 6,743,000 7,213,000 7,074,000 7,156,000 7,048,000 7,105,000 6,680,000 5,970,000 5,785,000 5,550,000

Identified Need (1,311,050) (1,329,050) (2,502,900) (2,972,900) (2,833,900) (2,915,900) (2,807,900) (2,864,900) (2,439,900) (1,729,900) (1,544,900) (1,309,900) FFSA Reduced to Available Funds (1,402,000) (1,402,000) (70,850) (70,850) Request from Legislature for 15-17BN & Future biennial funding 2,947,000 2,947,000 2,947,000 2,947,000 2,947,000 2,947,000 2,947,000 2,947,000 2,947,000 2,947,000 2,947,000 2,947,000Fund Balance 224,950 224,950 363,200 363,200 435,300 435,300 545,900 545,900Difference 233,950 215,950 598,200 128,200 476,300 394,300 574,400 517,400 1,053,000 1,763,000 1,402,100 1,637,100

Cultural Resources Roundtable

April 21, 2015

MEMORANDUM

TO: Forest Practices Board

FROM: Timber/Fish/Wildlife Cultural Resources Roundtable Co-Chairs Jeffrey Thomas, Puyallup Tribe of Indians Karen Terwilleger, Washington Forest Protection Association

SUBJECT: Staff Report of Timber/Fish/Wildlife Cultural Resources Roundtable to the May 2015 Quarterly Forest Practices Board meeting

The TFW Cultural Resources Roundtable is pleased to submit this latest report to the Forest Practices Board (Board). The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Board have a long history of commitment to the protecting cultural resources. This protection is a key component of the Timber Fish and Wildlife Agreement. As a result of the Forests & Fish negotiations, the Roundtable developed and the Board approved the Cultural Resources Protection and Management Plan (CRPMP). The CRPMP is also incorporated into the Forest Practices Habitat Conservation Plan. A cultural resources module was developed for watershed analysis. In Washington, the Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation is the agency of expertise and has a significant role in cultural resource protection. In March 2014, the Yakama Nation brought their concerns saying DNR was not conditioning FPAs for landowner-Tribe agreed upon cultural resource plans under WAC 222-20-120 (4). The Board has recently received letters from the Yakama Nation and Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation and the Upper Columbia United Tribes requesting action on this issue. The Yakama Nation has proposed a solution to implement the cultural goals of the 1987 TFW Agreement (attached). As we have previously reported to you, the past several Roundtable meetings and work groups have focused on DNR’s authority and practice in conditioning Forest Practices Applications (FPAs) related to cultural resources plans. Understanding the complex legal and policy considerations related to cultural resources has taken time and there is not agreement with the explanations. All parties around the table

have made clear their commitment to cultural resource protection. Our discussions have been robust and frank. An initial strategy for discussing the issue utilizing flowcharts of the FPA approval process related to cultural resources and the associated DAHP review, informational needs, policy options and potential funding requirements has been proposed. A draft discussion strategy is attached to this report along with draft process flowcharts. In the coming months, the Roundtable will focus exclusively on resolving this issue. To that end, we will resume monthly meetings. We also request the following from the Board:

• Funding for a facilitator to assist the Roundtable in developing solutions, analyzing implications for policy, administrative rule and HCP implementation, and evaluating whether the current process meets the intent of cultural resource protection under the statewide HCP.

• Inclusion as a standing agenda item on the Quarterly Board Agenda until the Roundtable makes its recommendations to the Board.

As usual, we’ve attached the Roundtable’s Action Item list. This list is reviewed quarterly by the Roundtable and updated to reflect current activities. Changes from our previous report (dated January, 2015) are highlighted in red and italic print. As you will note, resolving these issues is our highest priority and our exclusive work at this time. We look forward to discussing this plan at the May Board meeting. Please do not hesitate to contact us prior to the meeting.

[email protected] and (253) 405-7478

[email protected] and (360) 480-0927

Enclosures



1

4/21/2015 Changes from the previous report are in Red or Italics

Project Priority Lead Status Next Action Relationship to the

CRPMP

High 1

Jeffrey, Karen, David, Sherri

Beginning Ongoing Highest Priority

Identify and resolve specific issues and policy framework CRPMP Purpose #3, and

Appendix C

High 2 Allyson Brooks

Roundtable will bring a request

to te FPB in May

Identify needs and potential resources Overall Implementation of the

CRPMP

High 3 On hold due to Priority #1

Educational Program and Commitments

Scope the guidance/manual project to develop a detailed description and outline of the proposed guidance or manual. Complete

Work products:1) Guidance for T/F/W stakeholders, 2) Guidance specific to forest landowners, and 3) Guidance specific to Tribes.

Jesse and Gretchen In progress

Schedule work group in April to review completed drafts; prepare drafts on remaining sections

Post Roundtable guidance documents and other information and training material on the DNR Forest Practices web site On going

High 4 Jeffrey Karen Planning Schedule work group in 2014 An education component of the

CRPMP

Medium 5 Jeffrey and dAVe In progress Draft logo under review PublicityDevelop a Logo for the Cultural Resources Roundtable

T/F/W Cultural Resources Roundtable

Action Items

Investigate opportunities to develop training workshop curricula and presentation for private industrial foresters.

Prepare the cultural resource guidance documents and tools as agreed to in the CRPMP

Seek funding and staff support for the Roundtable's work

Review Resolve DNR's FPA conditioning authority

2



CRPMP


Action Items

Medium 6 CRPMP amendments to consider and further discuss: All Scoping

Members of the Roundtable will provide suggestions for amendments after the guidance document task is completed.

CRPMP Support

Regarding MOUs, consider adding a statement specifying when DNR has a role in implementing MOUs and if there is a role, specifying its nature.

Under “Education Program and Commitments,” modify #2 to recognize that agreements are often executed at the field level without the need for higher level contacts

Reference a role for the CRPMP in Forest Practices ID team deliberations and preparation of SEPA documents for Class IV Special FPAs

Jeffrey

Low 7 Jeffrey and Karen On hold Wait for other higher priority

items to be addressed

Prepare a report to the Forest Practices Board on the impact to cultural resource protection and management when forest land is converted to another use and regulatory responsibility passes to local government (county or city)

3



CRPMP


Action Items

On-Going Tasks

1 Co-Chairs Annual & quarterly obligation

2 All Communication

3 Jeffrey and Jesse

4 Jeffrey Planning Select calendaring software CRPMP Support; Communication

5 All Advance the Roundtable's work

6 Individual Caucuses

Currently the position has 1/2 time funding

Next opportunity is the 2014 Legislature

DNR Forest Practices Program support

7 On hold Waiting for the next opportunity

Board Manual Section 11 Appendix J

Give a CRPMP presentation at Regional TFW meetings as new CRPMP support material is released.

Next opportunity for TFW presentations after the 20-120 rule and supporting manual is passed by the FPB

The Roundtable will: (a) meet quarterly; (b) Report to the FP Board at each regular meeting; (c) Review the CRPMP each year; (d) Report to the FP Board each August on progress of the CRPMP during the previous FY (e) suggest recommendations for modification to CRPMP .

Collaborate with current FP Board members regarding cultural resources issues coming to

the Board.

Contact individual FP Board members to “champion” CR Roundtable issues

FPB meeting May 12 Report due April 16

Create a Roundtable presentation about the CRPMP and Roundtable activities with a singular message and bullet points

Individual caucuses will continue to support funding for a full time position at DAHP for the maintenance of CR data in support of the forest practices risk assessment tool.

Seek funding for a CR Module pilot project

Maintain an annual calendar of recurring Roundtable tasks and functions and post on DNR's website. Include FP Board report due dates, DNR regional TFW meetings and upcoming training opportunities. Emphasize accomplishments when communicating progress on implementing the CRPMP. Post examples of successes and cooperative opportunities on the DNR Forest Practices web site.

4



CRPMP


Action Items

Completed

Items1 Completed

2003

2 Completed 2005

3 Completed 2005

4 Completed 2008

5 Completed 2008

6 Completed Spring 2009

7

Complete (Board action

was unnecessary)

8 Completed 2011

9 Completed 2011

10 Completed 2011

Recommendation adopted by the Board in Feb, 2012

11 Completed May 2012

Forest Practices Board adopted the rules recommended in the CRPMP

Prepare a streaming video of Lee Stilson's lecture on cultural resources that typically may be found in Washington's managed forests

As requested by the FPB, review and comment on a suggestion to amend 222-20-120 Sub-Section (3)(c))(i)

A recommendation to include a cultural resource question on the Phase II 15-year small landowner permit application.

Consensus recommendation on changes to WAC 222-20-120 delivered to the Forest Practices Board

Draft a motion for the Forest Practices Board to request that the staff create a CR page on the Department's forest practices website

With the support of the Commissioners Office, a Charter for the Timber/Fish/Wildlife Cultural Resources Roundtable (formerly known as TFW Cultural Resources Committee) delivered to the Forest Practices Board

Recommendation to DNR staff and the Board for changes to the historic site definitions in Class III and Class IV Special definition to correct long standing interpretation issues

Cultural Resource Protection and Management Plan (CRPMP)

Statutory exemption for sensitive cultural resource information gathered during a watershed analysis CR module or stand-alone CR module

Updates to the CRPMP

5



CRPMP


Action Items

12 Completed June 2012

13Completed September

2012

14 Completed October 2012

Making available tools to improve identification and recognition of cultural resources in the field

15 Sherri Completed October 2013

Draft submitted to DNR for inclusion in the next update of FPA Instructions.

This would be an edit to Appendix B of the Cultural Resources Protection and Management Plan

16Final Rule Completed April 2014

Ecology is recommending that Cultural Resource be considered as one of three top priorities for Phase 2 rulemaking. The Roundtable will continue to monitor

Follow the State Environmental Policy Act rule making by the Department of Ecology to draft rules to increase categorical exemptions.

Two new cultural resource links have been added to the DNR Forest Practices webpage. Roundtable agendas, notes and action item list are on the Forest Practices Board's webpage

In time for the FY 2012 report to the FPB, develop a method for formally assessing the performance CRPMP in accomplishing its purposes as stated on page 1 of the plan.

Update the instructions for question 7 of the forest practices application.

Improve knowledge, understanding and use of the GLO, historic and current USGS quad maps and other publicly available information to identify historic features recognized during 19th century land surveys.

Yakama Nation Proposed Solution For Cultural Resources Protection Under Forest Practices Rules

Forest Practices Rules for cultural resources protection were a direct response to the February 17, 1987 Timber, Fish and Wildlife (TFW) Agreement. Rules were in place addressing some cultural resources concerns by January 1, 1988. These rules included WAC 222-16-050(5)(k) and WAC 222-20-120. However, there has never been an effort to fully implement the 28-year-old archaeological and cultural goals of the TFW Agreement. A proposed solution is presented here: To serve on the TFW Cultural Resources Roundtable participants must commit to the Archaeological and Cultural goals of the 1987 TFW Agreement: “to develop a process to inventory archaeological/cultural spaces in managed forests; and to inventory, evaluate, preserve and protect traditional cultural and archaeological spaces and assure tribal access”. Implementation of the Archaeological and Cultural goals of the TFW Agreement requires an honest commitment from all participants. Where WAC 222-20-120(2) has been implemented, requiring Tribal-landowner meetings, positive working relationships have developed between the Yakama Nation and landowners. Landowners and consultants often contact the Nation prior to submitting a forest practices application (FPA), in the areas where WAC 222-20-120(2) has been implemented, to resolve any cultural resources issues. The decision to stop implementing WAC 222-20-120(4), making plans a condition of FPAs, has created enforcement problems. The Cultural Resources Module of Watershed Analysis, which arose from the Forest and Fish Report, was approved by the Forest Practices Board May 11, 2005 but has never been used. There are few examples of voluntary processes working in Forest Practices across the state.

Proposed Provisions to Implement Archaeological and Cultural Goals of TFW:

1) Restore WAC 222-20-120(4) with the “may” changed to “shall”. Instruct all Regions to consistently make plans agreed to between Tribes and landowners an FPA condition when requested. 2) Instruct all Regions to consistently require meetings under WAC 222-20-120(2) when Tribes appropriately use WAC 222-16-050(5)(k) to identify cultural resources. 3) Insert incidental discovery language into every approved FPA. 4) Use the DAHP predictive model to screen every FPA. High Risk and Very High Risk areas shall trigger a required professional survey to “inventory archaeological/cultural spaces”. Consultation with local Tribes will be required. 5) When archaeological and cultural sites are discovered professionals shall “inventory, evaluate” and make recommendations to “preserve and protect” in consultation with local Tribes. 6) “Assure Tribal access” to Tribally significant areas in “managed forests” through binding consultation between affected Tribes and landowners.

Cultural Resources Roundtable

Draft Discussion Strategy

DNR FPA Conditioning Process for Cultural Resources Issue: How does the DNR condition forest practice applications under 222-20-120(4): “The department may condition the application in accordance with the plan.”

NEXT STEPS Review key documents and recommit to protection of cultural resources:

• TFW Principles, Goals and Ground Rules • FFR Cultural Resources Excerpts • TFW Cultural Resources Roundtable Charter • Cultural Resources Protection and Management Plan • Watershed Analysis Module for Cultural Resources

Flowchart of process: DNR & DAHP will produce flowcharts to show how cultural and state-listed archeological/historical resources are reviewed in the FPA process and when landowner-Tribal meetings are required. Although Tribes and landowners differ in specific timeline for reviewing these resources, it may be helpful to add a list of common considerations. Additional Information Needed for Discussion: Note: Roundtable participants are encouraged to identify additional questions.

• We need a solid written understanding of DNR’s conditioning authority regarding landowner-Tribe cultural resource plans and DAHP regulatory plans Including: o What is the extent of DNR conditioning authority (i.e. provisions included with the submission

of an FPA, specific examples out of the plans)? o How do DAHP authority/plans and information apply to FP approvals? o What are the regulatory authorities of DAHP and DNR? o Is there an overlap of authorities between DNR and DAHP?

• What are the formal communication processes between caucuses and the Roundtable about changes in conditioning practices?

• Who does what in DNR regions and at DAHP? o Who is the appropriate person for DAHP to contact in the DNR regions? o How should coordination with the landowners work?

• How can essential tribal conditions be incorporated into a landowner -Tribal plan and associated FPAs?

• How are Tribes notified about cultural resources issues in individual FPAs, particularly related to exclusion of areas from harvest units?

• In addition to the interaction with DAHP, are there other scenarios in FPA processing when there is a non-DNR regulatory authority involved? If so, how does DNR incorporate those regulatory outcomes into the FPA decision-making process?

• What avenues are there for including cultural resources into the definition of a public resource? • What additional options or resources for cultural resources could be available for documenting and

protecting cultural resources? • How does cultural resource identification process under WAC 222-16-050(5)(k) work? • What are specific situations where the current process doesn’t work; how often do they occur? • What are avenues are there for protecting the public information value of a site? • What resources are Tribes presently relying upon to fulfill their individual FPA screening work. • What % of FPAs experience cultural resources screening efforts per year? Is it every – or just

selected FPAs? • How many Tribes screen FPAs using their FFSA funds? • How are FPA screening efforts financed by each individual Tribe. • Is tribal screening of FPAs in competition with screens of non-FPA land use proposal types (e.g. site

development permits, local governmental SEPA reviews, etc.)? • What is the average cost of cultural resources FPA screening - per Tribe/per year (current vs.

optimal)? • What standards are/would be used to guide FPA-based tribal consultation work? Do they relate to

the Commissioners Order, the Millenium Agreement, and/or the Centennial Accord (and/or the NHPA as per the HCP)?

• What are the mechanisms related to fulfilling the site conditions provision presented in the archeological and cultural section of the TFW agreement?

• •

Potential Options Suggested by TFW Participants for next steps and further actions (party suggesting option): Note: Roundtable participants are encouraged to identify additional options.

• Clarify existing regulatory authority process. (WFPA) • Develop additional tools for Tribes and landowners to use during landowner –Tribal planning

meetings. (WFPA) • Use CRR survey to identify specific areas where 222-20-120 works well/doesn’t work. (WFPA) • Restore WAC 222-20-120(4) with the “may” changed to “shall”. Instruct all Regions to consistently

make plans agreed to between Tribes and landowners an FPA condition when requested. (Yakama) • Instruct all Regions to consistently require meetings under WAC 222-20-120(2) when Tribes

appropriately use WAC 222-16-050(5)(k) to identify cultural resources. (Yakama) • Insert incidental discovery language into every approved FPA. (Yakama) • Use the DAHP predictive model to screen every FPA. High risk and Very high risk areas shall trigger

a required professional survey to “inventory archaeological/cultural spaces”. Consultation with local Tribes will be required. (Yakama)

• When archaeological and cultural sites are discovered professionals shall “inventory, evaluate” and make recommendations to “preserve and protect” in consultation with local Tribes. (Yakama)

• “Assure Tribal access” to Tribally significant areas in “managed forests” through binding consultation between affected Tribes and landowners. (Yakama)

• Develop additional guidance for landowners. (WFPA) • Develop additional cross-training opportunities for DNR staff, landowners and Tribal staff. (WFPA) • Complete the biennial review required under the Cultural Resources Protection and Management

Plan. (WFPA) • Begin formal evaluation of cultural resources program. (Puyallup) • •

Consensus Recommendations: Note: Roundtable participants will develop schedule for resolving questions and analyzing options at the April meeting.

CULTURAL RESOURCES (CR) FPA/N PROCESSDraft

FPA/N RECEIVED

Office screens and classifies

Reviewers notified including per WAC

222-20-120(1)

Class IV Special or General

Involves CRWAC 222-16-050 (1) (f)

Class IV Special CR exemption (f)(iv)

NO SEPA ReviewChapter 197-11 WAC

Historic & Cultural Preservation

WAC 197-11-444 (2)(b)(iv)

FPA approved with CR SEPA conditions

YES Not Class IV See Class III

Class IIIInvolves CR

WAC 222-16-050 (5)(k)

WAC 222-20-120 (2), (3) & (4)

Meeting between tribe and landowner

YESCR Protection

Plan agreed to?

YES

FPA approvedDNR may condition in accordance with CR Protection Plan

NO FPA approvedNo CR conditions

NOFPA

disapproved

Class IIDoesn’t involve CR

WAC 222-16-050 (4)

Effective in five (5) days

CR found see Class IV and Class

III

4/21/2015

FOREST PRACTICES BOARD 2015 WORK PLAN

TASK COMPLETION DATE/STATUS

Adaptive Management Program · CMER Master Project Schedule Progress* May · Effectiveness of Riparian Management Zones in Providing Habitat for

Wildlife Study* May

· Effects of Forested Roads and Tree Removal In or Near Wetlands of the Pacific Northwest Literature Synthesis

May

· Program Funding On-going · Review and Synthesis of Literature on Tailed Frogs with Special

Reference to Managed Landscapes August

· Temperature and Solar Radiation/Effective Shade Study* August · Type F* November · Type N* August · Wetland Research and Monitoring Strategy: Forest Practices and

Wetlands Report May

· Proposal Initiation for Alternate Plan Template Timeline* May Annual Reports · Clean Water Act Assurances August · Compliance Monitoring Annual Report August · Northern Spotted Owl Conservation Advisory Group May · Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly Report May · TFW Cultural Resources Roundtable including WAC 222-20-120 August · TFW Policy Committee Priorities* August · Western Gray Squirrel May Board Manual Development · Section 7, Guidelines for Riparian Management Zones November · Section 16, Evaluating Potentially Unstable Slopes and Landforms August · Section 23 (Part 2), Guidelines for Field Protocol to Locate Mapped

Divisions Between Stream Types and Perennial Stream Identification* November

CMER Membership As needed Rule Making · Unstable slopes information on Forest Practices Applications February · RMZ Clarification November Upland Wildlife - Northern Spotted Owl On-going Quarterly Reports · Adaptive Management Program & Strategic Plan Implementation* Each regular meeting · Board Manual Development Each regular meeting · Compliance Monitoring Each regular meeting · Clean Water Act Assurances May · Legislative Update February & May · NSO Implementation Team Each regular meeting · Rule Making Activities Each regular meeting · Small Forest Landowner Advisory Committee & Office Each regular meeting

Italics = proposed changes Last update February 2015 *= TFW Policy Committee

FOREST PRACTICES BOARD 2015 WORK PLAN

TASK COMPLETION DATE/STATUS

· TFW Cultural Resources Roundtable Each regular meeting · TFW Policy Committee Work Plan Accomplishments & Priorities* Each regular meeting · Upland Wildlife Working Group Each regular meeting Work Planning for 2016 November

Italics = proposed changes Last update February 2015 *= TFW Policy Committee

Documents

Natural Resources Building, Room 172, Olympia DRAFT AGENDA ... › publications › bc_fp_mtgmat_1_20150512.pdf · Aaron Everett, Chair, Department of Natural Resources 9 . Bill Little,